Search in ‘Judgments and decisions’

Decision of 10 July 2018 - BVerwG 2 WDB 2.18 (uploaded on 11 July 2019)


The immunity of a Member of the European Parliament establishes a procedural impediment to conducting a disciplinary proceeding in the military disciplinary and complaints courts. This also applies to proceedings initiated prior to the acquisition of membership ("legacy" proceedings).

Judgment of 19 April 2018 - BVerwG 2 C 40.17 (uploaded on 15 July 2019)

Fire fighter's claim for compensation for excessive work in breach of EU law


1. Regular working time cannot concurrently be overtime; this is the case even if regular working time is unlawfully set too high.

2. A detriment within the meaning of article 22 (1) of the Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC) exists if an employer responds with a reprisal measure to an employee's refusal to work more than 48 hours per week, or if the factual and legal consequences of this refusal prove to be negative when viewed objectively in an overall assessment. Adverse circumstances for which the employer compensates otherwise - for example, with monetary compensation or compensatory time off - must be left out of consideration in this regard.

3. The duty to assert claims against the employer, which do not arise directly by operation of law (principle of prompt assertion), in writing, is met by the civil servant in any text form, including, for example, via email. The requirement of form under section 126 (1) BGB does not apply.

Deportation order against a person posing a threat of Islamic terrorism


1. A deportation order does not expire following its enforcement (see BVerwG, judgment of 14 December 2016 - 1 C 11.15).

2. Judicial assessment of a deportation order that has been enforced must be based on the factual and legal situation prevailing at the time of the deportation.

3. A deportation order pursuant to section 58a AufenthG requires a threat situation determined on the basis of facts in which the risk of an act endangering security or a terrorist act resulting from the foreign national can evolve at any time and become a specific threat (see BVerwG, decisions of 21 March 2017 - 1 VR 1.17 and 1 VR 2.17).

4. The lawfulness of a deportation order made pursuant to section 58a AufenthG does not depend on the lawfulness of a ban on entry and residence issued at the same time.

5. A deportation ban under section 60 (1) to (8) AufenthG related to the state to which the individual is to be deported results in the (partial) unlawfulness of a deportation order made pursuant to section 58a AufenthG.

Judgment of 1 June 2017 - BVerwG 9 C 2.16 (uploaded on 7 March 2018)

Formally unlawful bicycle track construction in a special conservation area under the Habitats Directive


1. The right of an association to bring legal proceedings in the interest of the general public (section 2 (1) in connection with section 1 (1) of the Environmental Appeals Act (UmwRG, Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz)) includes the right to institute an action for administrative intervention against a project built and operated without a decision on the required permission.

2. As a general rule, the discretion of the nature conservation authority to prevent the use of a bicycle track built without the required planning approval procedure (Planfeststellungsverfahren) pursuant to section 3 (2) of the Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG, Bundesnaturschutzgesetz), turns into a legal obligation where such use reasonably gives rise to concrete fears over considerable adverse effects in excess of the construction-related disturbance until completion of the subsequent planning approval procedure.

Judgment of 14 December 2016 - BVerwG 6 A 9.14 (uploaded on 7 February 2018)


A legal relationship establishable within the meaning of section 43 (1) of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO, Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung) does not exist, even taking into account the guarantee of the legal protection of rights of article 19 (4) first sentence of the Basic Law (GG, Grundgesetz), when a possible encroachment on the basic right deriving from article 10 of the Basic Law in the context of the strategic surveillance of telecommunications has been removed immediately and without consequence and therefore can no longer be established (following the judgment of 28 May 2014 - 6 A 1.13 – Rulings of the Federal Administrative Court 149, 359).

No restriction of examination of asylum applications if proceedings in other countries are not final


1. A refusal to conduct a further asylum procedure on subsequent and secondary applications, which under current law is rendered as an inadmissibility decision under section 29 (1) no. 5 of the Asylum Act (AsylG, Asylgesetz), is to be contested by way of an action for annulment (further evolution from Federal Administrative Court judgment of 10 February 1998 - 9 C 28.97 - Rulings of the Federal Administrative Court 106, 171).

2. Under section 71a (1) of the Asylum Act, in order for a secondary application for asylum to be denied as inadmissible without examining its substance, in the absence of new arguments, an asylum procedure in a safe third country must already have reached an unsuccessful conclusion.

3. An asylum procedure that was in progress in another EU Member State, and that was discontinued without an examination of its substance because the applicant moved away, was not concluded unsuccessfully in this sense if, according to the rules of that country’s legal system, the procedure can be resumed in a way that ensures a full examination of the substance of the application.

Judgment of 28 April 2016 - BVerwG 4 A 2.15 (uploaded on 24 October 2017)


1. Section 49 of the Administrative Procedure Act (VwVfG, Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz) also applies to planning approval decisions under aviation law (luftverkehrsrechtliche Planfeststellungsbeschlüsse). Third parties may demand that such an act be revoked, or that a discretionary decision be taken in its regard, only if the obligations as to protection stipulated by section 75 (2) second sentence of the Administrative Procedure Act do not suffice to remedy the situation.

2. A modified assessment of the given facts and circumstances may constitute a change in the factual situation in the sense of section 49 (2) first sentence no. 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Individual opinions that thus far have not found general acceptance in the scientific community are not a sufficient basis for doing so.

Judgment of 27 April 2016 - BVerwG 1 C 24.15 (uploaded on 9 August 2016)


If a Member State is responsible for carrying out an asylum procedure under the relevant terms of the Dublin Regulations, an applicant may in any event invoke that Member State’s responsibility in court proceedings against a rejection of his or her application for asylum as inadmissible under section 27a Asylum Act if it has not been positively established that another Member State (which does not have responsibility) is willing to take charge of the applicant or take him or her back.

Judgment of 7 April 2016 - BVerwG 4 C 1.15 (uploaded on 24 October 2017)

Construction ban in the case of interference with air traffic control services (ATCS) facilities by building structures


The decision incumbent on the Federal Supervisory Authority for Air Navigation Services (Bundesaufsichtsamt für Flugsicherung) under section 18a (1) second sentence of the German Aviation Act (LuftVG, Luftverkehrsgesetz) concerning whether the erection of building structures may interfere with air traffic control services facilities is not an administrative act.

A construction ban under section 18a (1) of the German Aviation Act is not dependent on certainty that there is interference with air traffic control services facilities; the possibility of interference is sufficient. This possibility exists if the relevant assumptions in the air traffic control services operator’s expert opinion and the decision of the the Federal Supervisory Authority for Air Navigation Services based thereon meet scientific standards and their basic assumptions, methodology and conclusions are not called into question by opposing scientific standpoints, at least not in substance.

Judgment of 6 April 2016 - BVerwG 3 C 10.14 (uploaded on 24 October 2017)

Permission for self-cultivation of cannabis for therapeutic purposes  


1. Self-cultivation of cannabis for therapeutic purposes is in the public interest within the meaning of section 3 (2) of the Narcotic Drugs Act (BtMG, Betäubungsmittelgesetz) if the applicant suffers from a severe disease and there is no equally effective and affordable drug available to him to treat his disease.

2. If no compelling grounds for refusal according to section 5 of the Narcotic Drugs Act exist in such a case, it is legally mandatory to make use of the discretion provided under section 3 (2) of the Narcotic Drugs Act by granting permission on the grounds of the protection of physical integrity required by article 2 (2) first sentence of the Basic Law.

No results found.

FAQFrequently asked questions

  • What judgments or decisions of the Federal Administrative Court can I find on the website?

    You can find rulings of the Federal Administrative Court from January 2002 onwards on this website. Excluded are

    • Decisions regarding values of the matter in dispute
    • Determinations of costs
    • Third-party summons
    • Settlement deals
    • Rulings that are classified or that have been rendered incomprehensible or distorted by the anonymisation required by law.

    Rulings of the Federal Administrative Court passed before the year 2002 will gradually be added to the website.

    You will also find abbreviated versions of several rulings in English.

  • When is the decision text for a judgment made available?

    It is usually published several weeks, in some cases also several months, after the delivery of a judgment.

    The background of this is as follows: In general, the Federal Administrative Court passes a judgment after a hearing and a deliberation. At that point in time, there is a ruling, the operative part of the judgment (so-called Tenor), but the text of the reasons for the ruling is not available yet. The written reasons will only be drawn up, a vote on them will be taken by the Senate, and they will be signed after the passing. Then the judgment will be delivered to all parties involved in the proceedings, anonymised and published.

  • What is the ECLI and what is it used for?

    ECLI is the abbreviation for the European Case Law Identifier. It serves to identify court rulings and enables cross-border search in a European judgment database. The ECLI allows for the linking of several sources and versions such as summaries, translations and comments for a judgment or decision. The ECLI often does not only lead you to just a single judgment, but to many other documents regarding this judgment.

  • How can I do research all over Europe using the ECLI?

    You can use the ECLI to do research in all participating national and European databases. That includes: